Two problems: the asserts are only frozen in this case. This is a fraud case, not a drug case, and they've not been subjected to civil asset forfeiture, so this doesn't touch on that.
The other is that if they can never freeze the assets, someone can simply spend or transfer all of their money after stealing it. If a thief has $5,000 and they steal $5,000, they can spend the stolen money and then claim the $5,000 they originally had is untouchable because they only spent stolen money.
Did you read the article? They're not fighting the freezing of the $45m of alleged proceeds of fraud, only the $15m of unrelated assets. The government argument is that those would be payable as a fine upon convicting so they don't want that money transferred out of the country.
Even you are calling that fictitious entity a "thief" rather than an "alleged thief." But it's just a character in a story, not a real person, nor does it represent anyone.
It's normal to make that part of a story to see how the law would play out in various cases. The point of that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it's to point out that the outcome of the desired ruling is simply to reward people for spending stolen money. This is a perfectly normal thing that is often used when discussing laws. [1]
This is different from saying that about the actual people being accused. This context is important. Otherwise one is failing to separate reality and fantasy.
The other is that if they can never freeze the assets, someone can simply spend or transfer all of their money after stealing it. If a thief has $5,000 and they steal $5,000, they can spend the stolen money and then claim the $5,000 they originally had is untouchable because they only spent stolen money.